Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[Silhouette]

I'm not walking anything back. From the start I asked shim to produce a single quote from any actual person of that era using the Bible to justify slavery.

And instead you got two entire testimonies which should have been more sufficient to prove that the bible was, indeed, used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation. And apparently, you weren't even denying that it was (and is).

What does slavery have to do with gay sex and the gay sex culture?

 

[Redfish]

I'm not walking anything back. From the start I asked shim to produce a single quote from any actual person of that era using the Bible to justify slavery.

And instead you got two entire testimonies which should have been more sufficient to prove that the bible was, indeed, used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation. And apparently, you weren't even denying that it was (and is).

What does slavery have to do with gay sex and the gay sex culture?

If they can't make the slavery analogy, their argument falls apart. Thats why they keep bringing it up.

 

[JoeB131]

[
And instead you got two entire testimonies which should have been more sufficient to prove that the bible was, indeed, used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation. And apparently, you weren't even denying that it was (and is).

What does slavery have to do with gay sex and the gay sex culture?

If they can't make the slavery analogy, their argument falls apart. Thats why they keep bringing it up.

uh, no, we bring it up because your main justification for your homophobia is that God says it's bad.

And even though you ignore a whole list of things God says is bad, you want to harp on this one thing.

But the bible says slavery is okay, and people used it to justify slavery right up until the civil war.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not walking anything back. From the start I asked shim to produce a single quote from any actual person of that era using the Bible to justify slavery.

And instead you got two entire testimonies which should have been more sufficient to prove that the bible was, indeed, used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation. And apparently, you weren't even denying that it was (and is).

What does slavery have to do with gay sex and the gay sex culture?

If they can't make the slavery analogy, their argument falls apart. Thats why they keep bringing it up.

Well it's a double-edged sword to bring up like that. They will be depending on the black vote when Windsor is reaffirmed, state by state as they try to push gay marriage on the states that way. Offending their harrowing ordeal and continued repression by equating it to a sodomistic lifestyle is highly offensive. The two are nothing alike. You are born black. You learn to have sex with the lower intestinal tract as an artificial vagina. We might as well be comparing plywood and pudding.

 

[Redfish]

[
And instead you got two entire testimonies which should have been more sufficient to prove that the bible was, indeed, used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation. And apparently, you weren't even denying that it was (and is).

What does slavery have to do with gay sex and the gay sex culture?

If they can't make the slavery analogy, their argument falls apart. Thats why they keep bringing it up.

uh, no, we bring it up because your main justification for your homophobia is that God says it's bad.

And even though you ignore a whole list of things God says is bad, you want to harp on this one thing.

But the bible says slavery is okay, and people used it to justify slavery right up until the civil war.

nothing you said is true. I am not a homophobe. I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. I want them to be able to have a legal binding committment to their same sex partners.

But their union is not, and will never be, a marriage. The gays that I know agree with that, BTW.

 

[JoeB131]

[


nothing you said is true. I am not a homophobe. I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. I want them to be able to have a legal binding committment to their same sex partners.

But their union is not, and will never be, a marriage. The gays that I know agree with that, BTW.

Ah, the old "Some of my best friends are..." tact. That one never gets old.

Frankly, how does it hurt you in any way that they call their "legal binding commitment" a "Marriage". It seems you are getting pretty hung up on a word.

 

[bodecea]

[
And instead you got two entire testimonies which should have been more sufficient to prove that the bible was, indeed, used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation. And apparently, you weren't even denying that it was (and is).

What does slavery have to do with gay sex and the gay sex culture?

If they can't make the slavery analogy, their argument falls apart. Thats why they keep bringing it up.

uh, no, we bring it up because your main justification for your homophobia is that God says it's bad.

And even though you ignore a whole list of things God says is bad, you want to harp on this one thing.

But the bible says slavery is okay, and people used it to justify slavery right up until the civil war.

nothing you said is true. I am not a homophobe. I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. I want them to be able to have a legal binding committment to their same sex partners.

But their union is not, and will never be, a marriage. The gays that I know agree with that, BTW.

Some of my best friends and family are straights....but that does not give straights permission to vote away my civil rights.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[
And instead you got two entire testimonies which should have been more sufficient to prove that the bible was, indeed, used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation. And apparently, you weren't even denying that it was (and is).

What does slavery have to do with gay sex and the gay sex culture?

If they can't make the slavery analogy, their argument falls apart. Thats why they keep bringing it up.

uh, no, we bring it up because your main justification for your homophobia is that God says it's bad.

And even though you ignore a whole list of things God says is bad, you want to harp on this one thing.

But the bible says slavery is okay, and people used it to justify slavery right up until the civil war.

nothing you said is true. I am not a homophobe. I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. I want them to be able to have a legal binding committment to their same sex partners.

But their union is not, and will never be, a marriage. The gays that I know agree with that, BTW.

Some of my best friends and family are straights....but that does not give straights permission to vote away my civil rights.

What does whether you have the right to marry or not have to do with forcing other people to do business with you?

Here's a DIRECT analogy.

It has been ruled that we have an absolute right to own and carry weapons, yet many businesses are posting signs stating that they don't want to do business with people who are carrying guns. How is that NOT a direct violation of your precious civil rights if you have the right to force people to do business with you?

Hint, you do NOT have the right to force people to do business with you. And frankly if you would accept and acknowledge that fact, you would have the higher moral ground that these nincompoops who for whatever reason believe the government should define marriage.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So you're suggesting that the government's official approbation of homosexuality is of the same stuff as that of the changing "manners and opinions" he had in mind, the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence regarding the foundational principle of the Republic's social contract?

Think again, especially given the fact that he would have been outraged by the Court's disregard for the proscribed method of amending the Constitution.

You were, I believe, deriding the fact that the Constitution is a changeable document, as it was intended to be. I simply pointed out that one of the primary guys responsible for the whole shebang thought of it as a changeable document.

Also, like it or not, prohibitions on marriage equality for gays will be found unconstitutional....and you an blame the 14th.

But hey...southern Democrats tried to warn ya'll.

Because, as the Davenport case makes clear, even ardent supporters of black equality were uneasy about the prospect of black men marrying white women, Democrats realized that they could divide the Republican Party by associating black citizenship with interracial marriage. They could turn public opinion or scare moderate Republicans into voting with Democrats. One historian remarked that from 1866 forward, “the Democrats injected the cry of amalgamation into every conceivable debate, no matter how irrelevant it actually was.” In typical straw man fashion, Democrats misconstrued the main post war issue from “what makes a U.S. citizen” to “would you marry your daughter to a ******?”

Democrats brought this line of argument to the 1866 congressional debate over the 14th amendment—which would grant blacks equal citizenship and guarantee protection of their civil rights. Democrats argued that because marriage was a civil right, a national amendment protecting civil rights would supersede state laws against interracial marriage. Any congressmen approving the amendment would, in effect, be removing one of the few barricades preventing black men from taking white brides.

The argument proved effective, as many voters made the connection between miscegenation and black citizenship. Unable to obtain enough support for the amendment with votes from southern states, northern Republicans passed the Reconstruction Acts, which removed southerner representatives from Congress and placed the South under military rule. Only after these states were removed from vote tallies were Republicans able to ratify the 14th Amendment.

The ratification of the 14th amendment didn’t stop Democrats from using miscegenation as a scare tactic. When Republicans introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which would require businesses that served the public to provide blacks with equal treatment, again, Democrats asked, if private businesses couldn’t take race into consideration, wouldn’t this eventually lead to private individuals being forced to ignore race in their personal lives? If so, would white women be committing a crime for rejecting a black suitor based on race?​

The Interracial Marriage Straw Man

A.) Well, that's your problem right there. I did not deride the notion that the Constitution could be changed. That's ridiculous. Everyone knows the Constitution can be amended. I derided the construct of the so-called living Constitution, which entails the absurdity that the Constitution can be legitimately amended, in effect, by means other than those prescribed in the Constitution, namely, by means of judicial review. But, then, you already knew that's what I was talking about, didn't you?

B.) Apples and oranges: the benign physiological traits/features of nature verses sexual ideology/behavior. But not just that: we also have your on-going, sociopathic denial regarding the distinction between the benign commercial transactions of common interest and those that would necessarily entangle persons who disdain homosexuality with the expressions/practices of homosexuality in violation of their inalienable human rights of ideological free-association and private property. That's the beast whose name you homofascists won't speak, as it were, because it exposes your depraved indifference for the rights of others as you impose your religion of sexual relativism and the rituals thereof, reducing others to second-class citizens, Miss. Jim Crow, Miss Different-and-therefore-must-be-dominated.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[
And instead you got two entire testimonies which should have been more sufficient to prove that the bible was, indeed, used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation. And apparently, you weren't even denying that it was (and is).

What does slavery have to do with gay sex and the gay sex culture?

If they can't make the slavery analogy, their argument falls apart. Thats why they keep bringing it up.

uh, no, we bring it up because your main justification for your homophobia is that God says it's bad.

And even though you ignore a whole list of things God says is bad, you want to harp on this one thing.

But the bible says slavery is okay, and people used it to justify slavery right up until the civil war.

nothing you said is true. I am not a homophobe. I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. I want them to be able to have a legal binding committment to their same sex partners.

But their union is not, and will never be, a marriage. The gays that I know agree with that, BTW.

Some of my best friends and family are straights....but that does not give straights permission to vote away my civil rights.

What does whether you have the right to marry or not have to do with forcing other people to do business with you?

Here's a DIRECT analogy.

It has been ruled that we have an absolute right to own and carry weapons, yet many businesses are posting signs stating that they don't want to do business with people who are carrying guns. How is that NOT a direct violation of your precious civil rights if you have the right to force people to do business with you?

Hint, you do NOT have the right to force people to do business with you. And frankly if you would accept and acknowledge that fact, you would have the higher moral ground that these nincompoops who for whatever reason believe the government should define marriage.

As opposed to the NINCOMPOOPS of little historical understanding regarding their nation's sociopolitical ethos and the ontological realities thereof, eh? Even less understanding of human nature? Those lacking sufficient life experience and learning? Those minds as closed as a slammed shut door to the fact of the underlying imperative of limited, republican government and the Republic's social contract?

As long as homofascists insist that the government define what marriage is (Knock. Knock. Anybody home?), the wise and perceptive patriots defending the inalienable rights of ideological free-association and private property will continue to oppose their homofascist agenda. Right. As if their agenda is not in fact about the government defining marriage and the ongoing governmental regulation of marriage that they may impose their sexual relativism on everybody. LOL! Just how blind are you?

For all your pretensions of defending liberty, you're still playing in the sandbox of the superficial and niave, STTAB.

________________________________

Nevertheless, the emboldened portion of your post is outstanding.

 

[g5000]

Bigot meltdown in progress.

Nothing to see here, folks. You've just stumbled onto the set of a remake of the George Wallace: Segregation Forever movie.

I recommend the original to see how it will end.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Bigot meltdown in progress.

Nothing to see here, folks. You've just stumbled onto the set of a remake of the George Wallace: Segregation Forever movie.

I recommend the original to see how it will end.

Still off your meds, eh? With perhaps as many as five exceptions, the real story of this thread is the meanderings of intellectual lightweights.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[
And instead you got two entire testimonies which should have been more sufficient to prove that the bible was, indeed, used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation. And apparently, you weren't even denying that it was (and is).

What does slavery have to do with gay sex and the gay sex culture?

If they can't make the slavery analogy, their argument falls apart. Thats why they keep bringing it up.

uh, no, we bring it up because your main justification for your homophobia is that God says it's bad.

And even though you ignore a whole list of things God says is bad, you want to harp on this one thing.

But the bible says slavery is okay, and people used it to justify slavery right up until the civil war.

nothing you said is true. I am not a homophobe. I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. I want them to be able to have a legal binding committment to their same sex partners.

But their union is not, and will never be, a marriage. The gays that I know agree with that, BTW.

Some of my best friends and family are straights....but that does not give straights permission to vote away my civil rights.

What does whether you have the right to marry or not have to do with forcing other people to do business with you?

Here's a DIRECT analogy.

It has been ruled that we have an absolute right to own and carry weapons, yet many businesses are posting signs stating that they don't want to do business with people who are carrying guns. How is that NOT a direct violation of your precious civil rights if you have the right to force people to do business with you?

Hint, you do NOT have the right to force people to do business with you. And frankly if you would accept and acknowledge that fact, you would have the higher moral ground that these nincompoops who for whatever reason believe the government should define marriage.

As opposed to the NINCOMPOOPS of little historical understanding regarding their nation's sociopolitical ethos and the ontological realities thereof, eh? Even less understanding of human nature? Those lacking sufficient life experience and learning? Those minds as closed as a slammed shut door to the fact of the underlying imperative of limited, republican government and the Republic's social contract?

As long as homofascists insist that the government define what marriage is (Knock. Knock. Anybody home?), the wise and perceptive patriots defending the inalienable rights of ideological free-association and private property will continue to oppose their homofascist agenda. Right. As if their agenda is not in fact about the government defining marriage and the ongoing governmental regulation of marriage that they may impose their sexual relativism on everybody. LOL! Just how blind are you?

For all your pretensions of defending liberty, you're still playing in the sandbox of the superficial and niave, STTAB.

________________________________

Nevertheless, the emboldened portion of your post is outstanding.

You are doing the same though when you insist that marriage NOT be defined as including gay marriage. Do you not get that?

 

[Seawytch]

Ah, the old "Some of my best friends are..." tact. That one never gets old.

Frankly, how does it hurt you in any way that they call their "legal binding commitment" a "Marriage". It seems you are getting pretty hung up on a word.

It's simple...if "gay marriage" effects your marriage, one or both of you is gay.

 

[Seawytch]

What does whether you have the right to marry or not have to do with forcing other people to do business with you?

Here's a DIRECT analogy.

It has been ruled that we have an absolute right to own and carry weapons, yet many businesses are posting signs stating that they don't want to do business with people who are carrying guns. How is that NOT a direct violation of your precious civil rights if you have the right to force people to do business with you?

Hint, you do NOT have the right to force people to do business with you. And frankly if you would accept and acknowledge that fact, you would have the higher moral ground that these nincompoops who for whatever reason believe the government should define marriage.

Cite the case stating gun owners are a protected class. Oh, there hasn't been one? Argument fail.

 

[bodecea]

[
And instead you got two entire testimonies which should have been more sufficient to prove that the bible was, indeed, used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation. And apparently, you weren't even denying that it was (and is).

What does slavery have to do with gay sex and the gay sex culture?

If they can't make the slavery analogy, their argument falls apart. Thats why they keep bringing it up.

uh, no, we bring it up because your main justification for your homophobia is that God says it's bad.

And even though you ignore a whole list of things God says is bad, you want to harp on this one thing.

But the bible says slavery is okay, and people used it to justify slavery right up until the civil war.

nothing you said is true. I am not a homophobe. I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. I want them to be able to have a legal binding committment to their same sex partners.

But their union is not, and will never be, a marriage. The gays that I know agree with that, BTW.

Some of my best friends and family are straights....but that does not give straights permission to vote away my civil rights.

What does whether you have the right to marry or not have to do with forcing other people to do business with you?

Here's a DIRECT analogy.

It has been ruled that we have an absolute right to own and carry weapons, yet many businesses are posting signs stating that they don't want to do business with people who are carrying guns. How is that NOT a direct violation of your precious civil rights if you have the right to force people to do business with you?

Hint, you do NOT have the right to force people to do business with you. And frankly if you would accept and acknowledge that fact, you would have the higher moral ground that these nincompoops who for whatever reason believe the government should define marriage.

If you had been paying attention, you would have known that it is not the gays the created Public Accomodation laws....NOR are gays the only people who PA laws affect. Where have you been for the decades such PA laws have been in affect? Why are you crying just now?

As for your analogy....isn't it just "open carry" they object to? Honestly, I expect that kind of thing to end up in the courts soon enough, don't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, I'm glad he's pissed off about that and not the many cases of genocide and famine and plague in the world. Imaginary Sky Pixies need their priorities.

But since 38% of straights have tried anal sex and 99% of straight engage in oral sex, you'd think God would have taken us all out by now.

100% of the statistics posted by JoeB are made up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

uh, no, we bring it up because your main justification for your homophobia is that God says it's bad.

And even though you ignore a whole list of things God says is bad, you want to harp on this one thing.

But the bible says slavery is okay, and people used it to justify slavery right up until the civil war.

Funny, I don't recall ever using that argument. Can you find it for me so I can see how stupid I am?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some of my best friends and family are straights....but that does not give straights permission to vote away my civil rights.

But, through some sort of magic formula, it gives gays the right to demand that government take away everyone else's civil rights.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What does whether you have the right to marry or not have to do with forcing other people to do business with you?

Here's a DIRECT analogy.

It has been ruled that we have an absolute right to own and carry weapons, yet many businesses are posting signs stating that they don't want to do business with people who are carrying guns. How is that NOT a direct violation of your precious civil rights if you have the right to force people to do business with you?

Hint, you do NOT have the right to force people to do business with you. And frankly if you would accept and acknowledge that fact, you would have the higher moral ground that these nincompoops who for whatever reason believe the government should define marriage.

Cite the case stating gun owners are a protected class. Oh, there hasn't been one? Argument fail.

That's the point you dishonest person. Protected classes are unconstitutional Unless you can explain how giving EXTRA protection to any group is equal protection.

In other words, if I can discriminate against gun owners legally then I should be able to discriminate against gays legally.

The government would have to pass a no discrimination PERIOD law to be constitutional.

.